Site Search Navigation

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Will She or Won’t She?

By Chris Suellentrop June 3, 2008 2:52 pmJune 3, 2008 2:52 pm

Is it over? The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder says yes, “the Democratic primary campaign is over.” He expects Hillary Clinton to “acknowledge reality” and “publicly acknowledge that Obama has crossed the threshold” of 2,118 delegates, the number required to secure the nomination.

But Ambinder also says, no, it’s not. Acknowledging reality isn’t the same thing as dropping out. In a separate post at his blog for The Atlantic, Ambinder writes of the race’s endgame:

Over the weekend, Sen. Hillary Clinton has told friends that she will NOT drop out today. Again, these conversations occurred over the weekend.

These friends expect that she will take a few days to think about her next move. They say she does not feel rushed and does not want to feel pressured. It is quite possible that Clinton makes a vice presidential overture in the speech; as in, she’ll express a willingness to serve her party in any capacity deemed necessary to to unite the party. The Obama world seems still very cool to this idea.

It is possible, of course, that the “inadequate black male” will violate the basic “throw the rascals out” theme of his campaign, do the one thing that will reduce his standing among large parts of his base, energize the Republicans, and attach his campaign Clinton who is viewed negatively by more than half the population to offer her the VP slot. But, don’t bet more than you can afford to lose.

Since the Iowa caucuses, the mass media have been writing Hillary out of the campaign. I expect that the reports that said she’d concede, were just one more part of their ongoing effort to sweep her out. It actually works out in their favor … after all, they reported she was going to concede, but now that she’s insisting she’s NOT conceding (//thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/clinton-campaign-confronts-ap-report/), this only makes her look befuddled, “bedeviled,” and irrational.

In other words, they invent a story to undermine her candidacy, then in the very act of denying the story, she cannot help but make things look even worse for herself. It’s truly an ingenious maneuver on the media’s part!

What else can we expect, when we already know whom the media have annointed? I mean … when Chris Matthews admits that Obama sends a thrill up his leg, and Brian Williams admits an inability to be objective about him … what other conclusion is possible? The media have chosen their Messiah, and it’s not the Senator from New York.

(P.S. I’m no Clinton supporter, I’m not even a Democrat; for that matter I’m no Republican, and do not support McCain either. I have absolutely no stake whatsoever in the Democratic primaries … just an amused bystander.)

Hey, Hill, have a little bourbon and branch water on me…a toast: “To the ’60’s!” – those were good times. Now, listen up kiddo, you’re going in there a loser but you’re going to stand up like a Rodham and tell the world that the best person won; Senator Obama won this contest fair and square and you’re going to be gracious – now I know you can be gracious, you tell them you threw everything including the kitchen sink at this man and he still beat you. Maybe, just maybe (you say) I went too far sometimes but that was just the old politics speakin’,not me. Yeah, you say that kiddo, because somebody’s gotta take the fall for this campaign and you’re big enough to take that fall. Then I want you go home to Westchester, get some sleep lotsa sleep, you look like hell, just kidding sweetheart, we love ya, got that…Remember, we’ll always have Woodstock…

Just what does Hillary want before the formal surrender? How do you go back to Chappaqua without some semi formal concession from the nominee. If not VP promise, what else? , debt relief?, seems pretty tame when dealing with the candidate that came THIS close. Remember, Ike gave Taft -0-.

Tough to see any scenario that works to Hillary’s advantage by stretching this out longer than this week, before Sunday talking heads. Like real estate and most litigation first deal is usually the best…

After Bush was elected in 2004, you may recall, the NYT columnists and basically every pundit under the sun ran around saying that the Democrats had lost because they put forward a candidate who did not appeal to rural areas in generally “red” states. Some Democrats “acknowledged reality” and went forward claiming to do that. Howard Dean set the DNC on its 50-states program, for instance, and while Kerry decided not to run again John Edwards stayed in play. But then, lo, the 2008 race: and we see HRC winning red areas/rural counties, and everyone immediately heaps scorn on those places instead of praise on HRC for winning them. If Obama can’t win the red states/rural counties, he is toast in November. And a lot of people will be able to say “I told you so.”

The self appointed political analysts sitting on their tripod thrones of prejudiced opinions continue to nit pick irrelevant issues in the hope that their brand names can alter the impact of the inevitability of the dynamics of change.
What they don’t seem to understand and will find difficult to comprehend is that the polls were wrong more often than they were right because they polled a section of the community and not a cross section of America.
So what else is new?
America wants change.Real change. Not a face lift. Not a gloss over.Not a panel beat job or a surgery operation. No way Hosea. America wants change. Why? Because people know their rights and they know they can vote whoever they want in and vote whoever they want out.The dynamics of change.
So the self appointed political analysts have to fold up their tents,and switch off their Backberries and be out of touch for a while and eat humble pie while they rewrite their scripts of acceptance that reality has won the day and the power of democracy has flexed it’s muscles in the arena of politics and knocked politricks out of the ring with all it’s messy wishy washy tricks of media spin and kitchen sink strategies.
“Yeah man. Right on. Move over old politicks . Step aside. Change is coming through…..”. Errol Smythe.

As a democrat voter I believe that the only way that we could possibly win the presidentual election and not end up serving under republicans again for the next four years is for Obama and Clinton to unite and become “The Dream Team” the best Democratic Party that we could have in office.I feel that this election is basically based on black,white,male,and female voters and in order to survive the mess that our country is in right now we need DEMOCRATS!!!!!!!THE DREAM TEAM!!!!!

Martin, you dimwit, Obama can easily win the “red” states in November if a majority of the Democrats in those states who voted for Hillary vote for him. Why is that so hard for Hillary’s people to understand? Their positions are fairly similar, he’s a more honest and likeable person with better character, and he’s got the much better chance to lead the Democratic Party to a “modern” future–so why wouldn’t those who voted for her vote for him? Because they’re bitter, and clinging to their guns and religion? Because they’re bigots? Analysis shows she appealed to the old, the poor, and the less well educated–does that mean she appeals to those less able to vote their self interest in November?

If Obama includes her a large part of his base will wonder why they voted for him. Same old losing democratic strategy. Let’s just give it to the repubs again. This is like watching Tommy Lasorda and his brilliant pitching choices.

What so many Obama supporters (i.e. #s 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7 out of 8 comments) don’t seem to get is that the obnoxiousness of their statements will help lose the GE for their candidate. Many self-respecting Clinton supporters will find it too hard to pull the lever for a candidate defined by what his supporters are so loudly proclaiming.

And no, it is not Hillary’s responsibility to undo their harm. She didn’t cause this and it is not hers to cure.

They will have no one to blame but themselves for the loss of the election.

There was an exposure of great loyalty as well as very weak minds on the part of some supporters this past weekend. While basking in the sunny beaches of PR(one candidate), the troops were in DC, crying their hearts out over a situation that should never have had any credibility.
The signing of non-participation to campaign or accepting of votes from Michigan or Florida was a binding agreement with ALL the Democratic candidates after the states violated party rules. The state voters themselves(including me in Florida) knew that the votes were cosmetic and therefor void, but a senator chose to vehemently protest the results because the cosmetic votes were in their favor. A little spark can sometimes create a fire. It worked. Now there are people that are making faces, growling, hissing, threatening to vote otherwise and near cardiac arrest over a political ploy. Remember these are lawyers that are now public servants, they can be as convincing as a snake charmer. WE need to be ready to join as a single nation, because when you pull up to the gas pump, it doesn’t ask if you are for him, her, black, white, latino, native, asian, republican, independent or democrat etc., you have to pay. And we will pay dearly, unless we figure this and other pressing issues out collectively and intelligently. Calm down, we may lose more than our tempers.

What many of the Obamaites don’t seem to get is that some of us just don’t like Obama. It’s not about race or issues. Remember earlier in this campaign Obama argued it was about judgement. Well, I don’t trust his judgement! I haven’t heard anything original from this guy, I don’t see why I have to “belive and hope” that he will learn on the job and I think the whole incident around his church shows moral cowardice and political pandering at it’s worse.

I’m not casting a vote for this guy. I’ve had 8 year of an “likeable” idiot, why would I want 8 more?!

These holdout Clinton supporters some real idealists. They would vote against pragmatism—or not vote at all, which is the same thing—rather than vote for Obama. I for one know we will all be damned if the Supreme Court goes 100% to the Right Wing nutjobs. Thankfully you ninnies have four months to think this over.

CG (#12) – It’s perfectly fine if you don’t like Obama and don’t want to vote for him. That doesn’t make you a racist, just like it doesn’t make anyone who doesn’t like Hillary a misogynist. I’m no Hillary-hater (I’ve voted for her for Senate, and would possibly vote for her again if she runs for senate in 2012) but I support Obama because I trust his judgement more than Hillary’s (and Bill’s) judgement.

However, a “likable idiot”? Obama is far from an idiot. He is clearly an educated and highly intelligent person, and just because he presents a vision of change and hope in our future doesn’t make him a hollow suit. But then again, we should all listen to our Senator when she says, “Just because we *can* doesn’t mean we *will*…” I forgot that hope and the desire for a better tomorrow is such an unamerican idea.

I hope that Obama does not capitulate (or appease, if you will) to the Clintons. She will be ballot-box poison for him, as the “Obamacans” will jump ship snd will get out the GOP vote. Also, I can’t trust that she will not try to wrest control from a President Obama. The Clintons play second fiddle to no one.

As of 8:30 PM EDT, Obama needs 9 delegates to win the nomination. Here’s one Democrat that’s looking forward to putting this primary in the past.

And for something original, look at his stance against the prevailing foreign policy positions of both parties on Iran, and his inarguably better judgment on Iraq.

For pandering see the McCain/Hillary gas tax. For inspiration and political will, see the nuanced view of race that Obama took in his first speech denouncing wright and the later angry rejection of his church.

Having Hillary run as VP is a terrible idea. As we have seen, Obama and Clinton are two very different politicians that put two very different brands on the Democratic Party. Having them together would not be complementary; it would just confuse the brand. People talk about the baggage Bill would bring to the ticket; but it’s not just him, it’s McAuliffe and Ickes and Carville and the rest of the 1992 team. It has to be remembered that all those guys accomplished is to get Clinton elected in two contests in which the GOP rolled over and played dead. They certainly didn’t do anything for the Congressional Democrats, who immediately started losing and didn’t regain power until Howard Dean took over the DNC. Gore and Kerry are very different from Clinton, but they both campaigned using the McAuliffe playbook and lost. It didn’t work for them, and it certainly won’t work for Obama. All those people worried about the loss of the “Reagan Democrats” (basically the children of the Wallace voters) aren’t getting that for the next 20 years we’ll be talking about a new voting bloc: the Obama Republicans. We can and should forfeit the white southern vote, because attempting to keep it is dividing and destroying the party and its values. We can win without it, but only by using a brand-new playbook, and that means losing the old one. Hillary and her handlers don’t get it, and they should be kept out of this race just as the progressive wing of the party has been kept out of the race ever since McGovern. But Obama won’t share his fate, because he has much better timing (and hopefully, a much stronger running mate: my choice is Richardson.)

For the record: despite my disgust with her campaign, I certainly would have voted for Hillary had she been the nominee. I cannot understand how anyone could think that Obama’s sins during this campaign are greater than the GOP’s sins of the last 8 years. Even if Obama turns out to be as poor an executive as some fear, it would still be preferable to any continuation or affirmation of the status quo. It is hard for me to fathom the bottomless wrath of the Clinton supporters; maybe it’s not racism, but it is certainly irrational.

A lot of Obama’s supporters don’t realize that Hillary’s supporters don’t feel welcome on Obama’s boat. Yeah, they outnumbered us, but can they outnumber McCain’s people? Not without our help. The more they antagonize Hillary and her supporters, the less likely they are to turn out for Obama. It’s common sense. A lot of people were and remain emotionally invested in Hillary’s campaign. The insults and the ridiculousness is wholly necessary and reflects very poorly upon Barack. Barack’s won. Congratulations. We don’t need to be the villains. We made our decisions and made our judgements, and his supporters should respect them. It really seems that Barack’s supporters are tearing up the Democratic Party more than anyone could have fathomed. Good job, Guys!

The Dem bigshots should remember that Hillary would have won had the primary been held by the same rules as the real election!
Also remember that Obama fanatics have been stating since the beginning that they would never vote for Hillary if she won. They started the war within the Democrats – now they have only themselves to blame if the Hillary supporters decide to vote for McCain.
Threatening Hillary supporters – like they did so successfully in each caucus – will not work in the real election.
Continuing calling names (“very weak minds” as above) is also not going to do it. In fact at this point, Obama people need to kiss the feet of the Hillary supporters and beg for their votes, not brag and boast and demand these votes. But this is not happening.
Obama’s problem is that his “race card” and “do nothing to be criticized for” strategy to get the nomination has alienated voters who he needs to win.
The polls show Hillary already running against McCain better than Obama.
Will the Dem. bigshots be able to admit they backed the wrong horse and choose the candidate who will win in Nov? If not – if they stick with Obama and he loses – we will know who to blame, and it will not be Hillary!

Among democrats… there are a lot of good, decent, progressive people who have legitimate issues with Obama. One example: Obama was like family with Rev Wright for decades. He brought his children to services to listen to Rev Wright every weekend. The Obamas nursed them on Wright’s emotion and sentiments. Rev Wright was like an uncle to them. It doesn’t mean Obama agrees with Wright. I actually believe that Obama doesn’t, for the most part. Yet, what does Obama believe? His words are important but not sufficient.

I think both Mccain and Obama will choose a vice president that is most likely to capture those “clinton” votes. For instance, if McCain draws in a moderate, pro-environment, peace-loving, non-white woman as his running mate, he might be more enticing to those clinton voters, than he currently is. I don’t know.

Similarly, for Obama, he needs someone like Gore or Hillary as a running mate… someone whom the clinton voters already trust. Obama’s running mate will be the only one who can put the clinton voters at ease.

Americans wanted change. That’s clearly what Bush gave us. Don’t forget… Bush ran as the compassionate moderate that would bring both parties together. He said such nice things before he was elected and did such different things. Clinton voters want change in the opposite direction… but also the stability and trust we felt prior to bush.
We don’t want to elect Obama (who like Bush is also running as a compassionate moderate who can bring both parties together) and then find that he has some hidden agenda he wants to execute. Only the opposite of Cheney… a strong, weathered democrat… will be able to show the clinton voters what Obama’s heart looks like.

Now the onus is on Hillary Clinton to support her party’s nominee, and without expectation of a veep spot. I sincerely hope that Obama does *not* choose her as running mate – it is time to move cleanly and clearly beyond the Bush-Clinton era.

My thoughts parallel those in #12. Like George Bush, Obama is relatively unaccomplished, but arrogant enough to think it doesn’t matter. Like George Bush, Obama defers to his faith when discussing policy. Like George Bush, Obama offers nothing new in the way of policy. Like George Bush, Obama dismisses concerns about his ability to do what he says he can. Like George Bush, Obama’s campaign is emotion and opposition. Like George Bush, Obama has presented himself as The One.

Look what George Bush did to the country and to his party. No thanks, my fellow liberals. Obama’s not a progressive candidate I can vote for.

I tried to sign onto Hillary’s website to register my desire that she GET OUT OF THE RACE. What I discovered was a pre-written message, which would automatically count my input as support for her!!! What she’s doing now at 10:30 EST on June 3 is so incredibly divisive and self-serving. She’s not working for the Democratic party: she’s working to salvage her husband’s questionable legacy and promote her own political future. Obama can/will win in November, but not if she drags everything down with her.

Hey CG this “likable idiot” won an election against the entire clinton machine, he has inspired a nation, anad will make us again be proud to be americans I am a white woman in my 60’s and am so very proud. This idiot was the first black presidenet of harvard law he has won the nomination of the democratic party in the toughest campaign I have ever witnessed. So in closing you sound like an “unlikable idiot “